saddam is the bravest leader of all

[crackerjack]

"In either case some sort of moral responsibility does lie with the people who made the decisions that caused this to happen doesn't it?"

No question. But the primary responsibility must lie with those doing the killing, otherwise you wind up with a thesis that makes excuses for murderers and an inverted racism that holds people in foreign countries to be incapable of individual agency.

"I still think things could have worked out much better if they/we'd had an idea of what they/we were going to do once Saddam was deposed)."

They did have an idea. Chalabi told them some fairytales and they chose to believe them.

 

[matt b]

Idlerich
I largely agree with your first para, especially your assessment of the US/UK position re the UN. But I think your wrong about what Matt B was saying. Vimothy's argument wasn't that Bush appealed to morality, therefore the invasion was justified, but that the invasion could be justified for moral reasons. Matt's stance is that morality is irrelevant since one man's ethics are another man's female genital mutilation.

no it fucking isn't.

you don't know what my stance on morality is, because we weren't discussing it. it was brought up in relation to the quote cited about two pages ago which stated that 'morals' [the article didn't state any specifics] could be used as a justification for the war.

i countered that if you take that vague view, then many actions could be justified- just as bin laden has done.

as i hinted at above i feel morals are hugely important, but the morals used to justify the war haven't been discussed on this thread.

 

[matt b]

The only thing clear about that is that you're an intellectual coward. If morality is subjective, and therefore an irrelevance in matters of politics, wtf are you doing on a political blog? Since something called international law is apparently the sole arbiter surely you'd be better off at a legal one.

oh gosh.

i didn't say morality is 'an irrelevance in matters of politics' of course its not

i didn't say 'international law is apparently the sole arbiter'

if those statements are the basis for calling me an intellectual coward then you're a lying cunt.

 

[vimothy]

I agree that he does seem to have veered down that path but (what I take to be) his original point is sound. Of course morality is more important than law but the quote that Vimothy supplied doesn't really give any moral argument for the war, it simply states that because it was the "right" thing to do then the law ought to be changed. The whole point is that a lot of people thought it wasn't the right thing to do.
If I am mis-representing Vimothy's argument then I'm sorry but it is an understandable mistake because I take it that it is being presented as a defence of US actions and the US did in fact act exactly in the way that Matt feared that quote was being used to justify.

There's two separate issues here. I believe:

1. There is a moral case for war.

2. The moral case is... (we can discuss this later, if anyone wants to)

Matt b's stance seems to be that any moral justification is impossible because morality is subjective. He is disagreeing with point 1 - ie there cannot be a moral case for war - not with point 2.

 

[Mr. Tea]

"I
No question. But the primary responsibility must lie with those doing the killing, otherwise you wind up with a thesis that makes excuses for murderers and an inverted racism that holds people in foreign countries to be incapable of individual agency.

I agree entirely, but there is shared responsibility in situations like this. Without wishing to sound condescending, people who've lived under tyranny and oppression their whole lives, with a simmering undercurrent of ethnic/religious hatred they've inherited through the generations, can't be expected to behave like good citizens as soon as they have 'freedom' - it's a bit like a classroom full of highly disturbed kids when the authoritarian teacher/minder leaves the room, you can't simply expect them to sit quietly and study like well-balanced kids from nice families.

 

[crackerjack]

"no it fucking isn't.

you don't know what my stance on morality is, because we weren't discussing it. it was brought up in relation to the quote cited about two pages ago which stated that 'morals' [the article didn't state any specifics] could be used as a justification for the war.

i countered that if you take that vague view, then many actions could be justified- just as bin laden has done.

as i hinted at above i feel morals are hugely important, but the morals used to justify the war haven't been discussed on this thread."

Well fucking discuss them then. All you've done is say Vimothy shouldn't refer to moral justifications since Bin Laden does the same thing.

"i didn't say 'international law is apparently the sole arbiter'"

No, but you did say this

"i think part of the problem we face with regard to religious fanatics has been fanned by justifications for actions based on 'certain fundamentals' as stated by bush and blair, rather than legal justifications. that was the point i was trying to make."

and this

"i have little faith in international law, but its all we've got."

So if international law is all (note: that's 'all', not 'the best'), then presumably you oppose any action which breaches it. Is it reasonable to deduce from that that you see it as the 'sole arbiter'?

 

[crackerjack]

"Is it reasonable to deduce from that that you see it as the 'sole arbiter'?"

Correction: that should be 'main arbiter'.

 

[IdleRich]

"There's two separate issues here. I believe:
1. There is a moral case for war.
2. The moral case is... (we can discuss this later, if anyone wants to)
Matt b's stance seems to be that any moral justification is impossible because morality is subjective. He is disagreeing with point 1, not with point 2."

If that is indeed Matt's stance then I disagree with it. What I think he is in fact saying is that the US stating that there is a moral case for war did not make it so.
Let me say again that the US invoked an (in my opinion) imaginary moral high ground to say that they were more right than the French, Germans or whoever opposed the war. They did not successfully demonstrate this in a way that convinced anyone that their opinions were correct so they decided to act (effectively) unilaterally. The quote that you linked to seemed to suggest that they were right to do so but why? They believed that they were acting morally as did Bin Laden - Matt was surely asking what makes their morality better than his when you have only their word to say that it was?
I get the feeling that we're going round in circles here. Obviously the thing that makes you feel that the US were correct and Bin Laden wasn't is that you agree with what they think and not what he thinks. The problem is that everyone is going to think that the opinion he holds is morally correct and therefore gives him the right to ignore international law. What, therefore is the point of interntational law?
As far as I can tell that is roughly what Matt is saying.

 

[matt b]

As far as I can tell that is roughly what Matt is saying.

correct.

did i really express it poorly?
(having re-read my posts, don't think so)

 

[crackerjack]

Idlerich
"What I think he is in fact saying is that the US stating that there is a moral case for war did not make it so. "

The second half of this sentence is beyond dispute. That doesn't mean there is and can be no 'moral case' for war. Obviously international law is important, but it is also hugely dependent on a UN that is almost incapable of doing what it was set up to do (viz; Rwanda then, Sudan now)

 

[IdleRich]

"2. The moral case is... (we can discuss this later, if anyone wants to)"

All of the above debate does somewhat ignore the fact that I don't believe that the US did think that they had a moral justification to invade Iraq. They clearly lied about WMD and were at least as interested in oil and their own political ends as they were the Iraqi people (I accept that they probably hoped that it would turn out ok for them and be a nice added bonus but that's about it) and that is why I find it particularly galling that they constantly harped on about their moral duty to break international law.
If there was a moral case to invade, in my opinion, the US certainly didn't make it.
Of course it's equally possible that the French were making the right decision for the wrong reasons which doesn't necessarily reflect much better on them.

 

[matt b]

Well fucking discuss them then. All you've done is say Vimothy shouldn't refer to moral justifications since Bin Laden does the same thing.

no i didn't. i said that if you are simply using vague justifications, such as 'its moral', other people who may have different morals may say the same thing

No, but you did say this

"i think part of the problem we face with regard to religious fanatics has been fanned by justifications for actions based on 'certain fundamentals' as stated by bush and blair, rather than legal justifications. that was the point i was trying to make."

and this

"i have little faith in international law, but its all we've got."

neither of which are ringing endorsements of international law, but in the case whether or not you invade a foreign country that is no threat to your own, i think international law should be followed for the sake of the world community, because it is agreed to by all nations.


the case put forward by the USA/UK included a number of practical reasons why saddam must go (WMA, 45 minutes etc- since found to be untrue) and moral ones (spreading freedom & democracy, saddam's a tyrant etc).

the UN believed neither the practical or the moral cases (something they did do in relation to afghanistan).


the moral case has been flawed from the beginning because it has not been followed consistently in all cases- attempted coup in venezuala supported by the USA, removing funding for the democratically elected palistinean gvt by Bush, torture flights, detention without trial etc etc.
this lack of consistency undermimes their moral position.

 

[crackerjack]

"this lack of consistency undermimes their moral position."

Agreed. And you could throw in their 'interest' in oil supplies, protecting Israel, family grudges etc.

But I'm still interested in this:

"in the case whether or not you invade a foreign country that is no threat to your own, i think international law should be followed for the sake of the world community, because it is agreed to by all nations."

So if, say, Clinton had sent US forces to Rwanda in 94 you'd have cried foul?

 

[matt b]

"this lack of consistency undermimes their moral position."

Agreed. And you could throw in their 'interest' in oil supplies, protecting Israel, family grudges etc.

phew!

So if, say, Clinton had sent US forces to Rwanda in 94 you'd have cried foul?

if it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, then yes.

 

[vimothy]

If that is indeed Matt's stance then I disagree with it. What I think he is in fact saying is that the US stating that there is a moral case for war did not make it so.

Well, I don't think anyone could disagree with that, and I have in fact said as much.

Let me say again that the US invoked an (in my opinion) imaginary moral high ground to say that they were more right than the French, Germans or whoever opposed the war. They did not successfully demonstrate this in a way that convinced anyone that their opinions were correct so they decided to act (effectively) unilaterally. The quote that you linked to seemed to suggest that they were right to do so but why? They believed that they were acting morally as did Bin Laden - Matt was surely asking what makes their morality better than his when you have only their word to say that it was?

Obviously the US position should be assessed and judged on its own merits.

I get the feeling that we're going round in circles here.

To say the least...

Obviously the thing that makes you feel that the US were correct and Bin Laden wasn't is that you agree with what they think and not what he thinks. The problem is that everyone is going to think that the opinion he holds is morally correct and therefore gives him the right to ignore international law. What, therefore is the point of interntational law?
As far as I can tell that is roughly what Matt is saying.

However, both opinions aren't necessarily right. And international law isn't always a reliable arbiter, as crackerjack has pointed out.

 

[vimothy]

if it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, then yes.

The law is an ass.

 

[IdleRich]

"However, both opinions aren't necessarily right. And international law isn't always a reliable arbiter, as crackerjack has pointed out."

But in that case what is? Surely the idea is to improve international law not completely discredit it which is what the US has done.
I think that the whole Iraq business left people with the opinion that the US will act in the way that it perceives to fit best with its own agenda. If international law sanctions this then great, if not tough. Shouting about morality was just a smoke screen to allow them to do what they wanted to do anyway and I think that to link to that quote and then argue as you have is disingenuous because it is clear that the US did indeed mis-use that argument in exactly the way they have been accused of doing.
As with any law there ought to be reforms at times when it is found wanting but I think it's very tenuous indeed to say that this is one of them.

 

[vimothy]

But in that case what is? Surely the idea is to improve international law not completely discredit it which is what the US has done.
I think that the whole Iraq business left people with the opinion that the US will act in the way that it perceives to fit best with its own agenda. If international law sanctions this then great, if not tough. Shouting about morality was just a smoke screen to allow them to do what they wanted to do anyway and I think that to link to that quote and then argue as you have is disingenuous because it is clear that the US did indeed mis-use that argument in exactly the way they have been accused of doing.
As with any law there ought to be reforms at times when it is found wanting but I think it's very tenuous indeed to say that this is one of them.

Well, I guess we all have to pick our way through the mine-field. It's a matter of opinion that the US has discredited international law. I think that the EU is a worse culprit, being unable or unwilling to enforce decisions or support its allies, and standing idle because its own interests are threatened.

Did the US really make the moral case for war? As I remember it they focused very heavily on WMDs and it was only afterward that I heard arguments in favour of intervention based on human rights and the like. Tony Blair certainly did, although the press didn't give it very much coverage. I have even heard arguments (from the "fat cunts") that Saddam abandoned any legitimacy he had as a ruler both when he attacked Kuwait and when he gassed his own people. In any case, it's not for Bush's sake that I support intervention - and the same is/was true for many people (Johan Hari for instance).

 

[crackerjack]

Originally Posted by IdleRich

But in that case what is? Surely the idea is to improve international law not completely discredit it which is what the US has done.

Unfortunately international law is going to be very very difficult to improve, since you're talking not about changing the law, but the structrue of the UN. Let's tkae the Rwanda case (since I'd have thought it's fairly clear cut). The French sided with the Hutus and would've vetoed any attempt to interfere in the country, allowing them to massacre 1m Tutsis. As permanent security council member they have a veto. So international law says we should've stayed out. I say we should've gone in. Who's right?

 

[vimothy]

The French were terrible with regard to Rwanda.